OUR UNDERSTANDING OF DISOWNMENT

I believe it is . . . great darkness
which leads people to believe that we cannot disown individuals and
love them. [2] When Phebe J. Hall
wrote these words some 35 years ago, the word disownment had already
been dropped from the annual statistics of Ohio Yearly Meeting for
several years, to be replaced with the more ambiguous membership
discontinued. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, having just reunited with
the Hicksite branch (which had not used the category for 33 years),
had ceased to record any kind of involuntary membership termination,
unless such cases were intended to be covered by the term released.
Clearly disownment was unpopular.

In much of the ensuing discussion of disownment we speak in
the past tense. This is not because we think the Quaker principles of
discipline no longer valid nor because our interest is merely
historical. It is because disownment is now so rare that it would be
impossible to generalize about it if we wrote in the present tense. A
questionnaire that some of us circulated at the 1984 conference of the
Quaker Theological Discussion Group in Wichita revealed that although
Friends from all branches and a wide selection of geographical
locations were present none of them knew of a recent disownment in
their meetings.[3] This would be
joyful news if it meant that Quakers had stopped sinning.
Unfortunately the same questionnaire results showed that the whole
spectrum of what used to be disownable offenses were being practiced
by members of the meetings represented. Ensuing discussion brought
out that the opinion Phebe Hall called great darkness was quite
commonly held: modern Quakers think that we cannot disown individuals
and love them. One respondent stated, We have never considered
disowning anyone but rather seek to help them find wholeness again.
For most of their history Friends did not think these two things
mutually exclusive.

The authors of this paper don't think it impossible to
disown individuals and love them, as it seems to us that Friends at
their best often did just that. We think that very few Friends today
know what disownment really means. The traditional principles of
Friends on this subject are not a living tradition; they have
been forgotten, and misconceptions on the subject amounting almost to
a phobia prevent most Friends from looking into it.

The history of the Society of Friends reveals a remarkably
clear and consistent tradition about disownment that was practiced
from the 1660s into the early 20th century. This is not to deny that
the discipline was applied more strictly in some times and places than
in others, that details of procedure could change, that the practical
exercise of love in the disciplinary process had its ups and downs, or
that irregular and unusual cases can be found. We will not say much
about how the historical development of Friends' practice has
been influenced by internal and external political pressures, as
although this could be an interesting study our purpose is in bringing
out the general principles involved, which really did not change much.
Therefore we have quoted rather freely from 17th-, 18th- and
19th-century sources.

The Word Disownment

To disown is the opposite of to own, in a sense of that term that is now
somewhat archaic but was in frequent use at the rise of Quakerism. A Puritan
asked George Fox whether he owned election and reprobation, meaning, did he
acknowledge these doctrines to be true.[4]
And for the scriptures which he quotes, they are owned, but not to cover the
wolf withal, said Fox in response to another critic, meaning: we acknowledge
the authority of those scripture texts, but not the application he is making of
them.[5] To own is to acknowledge, accept
the authority of, or admit; correspondingly to disown is to deny, or reject,
especially that which was formerly owned, or which one might be thought by
others to own. As applied to persons it means to declare one's disunity
with the person, to deny responsibility for his or her behavior.

Braithwaite attributes to Francis Howgill what may be the
earliest technical use of the word disown' in the following
incident. A Puritan plot to overthrow the monarchy was discovered in
1662, and Quakers were rumored to be involved in it. One former
Friend, Reginald Fawcett, was in fact part of the abortive uprising;
when Howgill was challenged in court about this he replied, Fawcett
has been disowned by us these six years. [6]

Friends sought to be a people whose lives, as well as words,
testified to the power of Christ to teach and lead his people. Those
whose lives said something different were undermining this objective.
They provided ammunition to the enemies of Friends who maintained that
reliance on an inward Light would lead to anarchy and libertinism. If
disorderly individuals could not be persuaded to mend their ways, then
Friends would go on record as not owning that person to be a member of
their community.

Disownment, then, is a statement. It is closely tied in with
the concept of testimony that runs all through Quaker history. To
testify, as a people, against war and fighting, meant being willing to
testify, if need arose, that a certain person given to violence was
not a Friend. To testify against, to deny, to declare disunity with,
are all expressions that are used synonymously with to disown in
Friends' literature.

Excommunication?

We deny all their . . . excommunications, cursing, with
bell, book, and candle, for the scripture saith, bless and curse
not. [7]

In testifying against an unrighteous action or even in disowning a
sinful member, Friends were not excommunicating in the sense that
other Christian churches did.[8]

Because other churches also at times revoke the membership of
individuals on account of their disapproved behavior it is natural to
think of disownment as another word for excommunication; however, the
two concepts are not identical, and Friends have usually repudiated
the term excommunication. The precise difference may be difficult to
pin down, but we think it basically consists in this: that
excommunication is aimed at the offender, whereas disownment is aimed
at the world. This needs some clarifying.

When the Roman Catholic Church denies a person the right to
communicate (a technical term for receiving the eucharistic
sacrament), they are denying him or her something which they believe
to be an important, or even an indispensable, channel of the grace of
God. If the excommunicated person believes in the doctrines of the
church then he believes the salvation of his soul to be in serious
jeopardy not merely because of the sin he was excommunicated for but
because he cannot get the sacrament.

Historically excommunication has also involved other
penalties, including exclusion from worship services, social shunning
by other church members, and loss of civil rights in church-dominated
nations.

Other churches that practice excommunication have often
differed from the Roman Catholic view of sacraments, but they have not
discarded the underlying idea of excommunication as something done
to an offender, of such nature as to motivate compliance based
on fear of the church; in other words, it is a punishment. It can be
a very severe punishment, putting a person into a far worse position
than he or she would have been in had s/he never joined the church.
Some Anabaptist groups have carried this so far that a husband and
wife may not eat or sleep together if one of them has been
excommunicated;[9] and in communal
churches excommunication can mean loss of one's home,
possessions, and means of livelihood.

By contrast Friends, when they disowned a person, were not
trying to do anything at all to that person. They were trying
to define for the world's benefit what Quakerism was; in
particular that it was not consistent with the type of behavior for
which the person was disowned. The individual did lose a few rights
(chiefly the right to sit in Friends' business meetings), but
only to such an extent as was unavoidable if the Society was to
maintain its self-definition; it was not done to make him feel bad,
and he was in no worse position than any other nonmember.[10]

Friends were often concerned to dissociate themselves from
punitive disciplinary practices and to stress the limited nature of
what they did in disowning:

Misapplied censures have attached to the Society of Friends, called
Quakers, in consequence of their practice of this nature, being (but
not by themselves) denominated excommunication. This term though
never used by them, sometimes confounds their dismemberments, in the
ideas of many, with those interdictions which deprive of temporal
advantages, and consign the soul to eternal wrath. On this account it
may be proper to observe, that a simple declaration of disunity, and
of the ground on which it has arisen, is the utmost that is practised
by the Society of Friends.[11]

For when any, by their inconsistent or disorderly conduct, or by
imbibing and adopting principles and practices contrary to the
doctrines which we hold, have first openly manifested their disunity
with the society, it is just and requisite, that after endeavouring to
restore them without effect, the body should testify its disunity with
such erring and refractory members; at the same time earnestly
desiring, that they may be convinced of the error of their ways, and
that through unfeigned repentance, and a consistent orderly conduct in
future, they may be reunited. This being the utmost extent of our
discipline respecting offenders, it is very evident that from the
right exercise thereof, no degree of persecution or imposition can be
justly inferred; for the imposition would rest entirely on the part of
those who might insist on being retained as members, whilst at open
variance with the Body, either in principle or practice.[12]

This is the extent of the Society's censure against
irreclaimable offenders, they are disowned as members of our religious
community; which is recommended to be done in such a disposition of
mind, as may convince them, that we sincerely desire their recovery
and restoration, considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted.
Gal. vi. 1.[13]

As can be seen from the context, the reference to
irreclaimable offenders in this last passage did not mean that Friends
thought anyone permanently irreclaimable but only that Friends had
done all they could, for the time being, in efforts to persuade the
offender to repent,[14] so that the
integrity of the Society required a testimony of disunity.

The Disciplinary Process

If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault,
between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or
two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may
be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the
church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as
an heathen-man and a publican.[15]

It is agreed in the unity of freinds that all professing the truth,
who have or shalbee guilty of any disorderly walkinge by which the
name of the Lord comes to bee dishonour'd, shalbee by a
particular paper for every such disorderly walking, condemned
publiquely by freinds; if so bee they who are or may be concern'd
shall refuse after foure or five exhortacions & admonitions,
according to the good order of the gosple, to give forth a publick
testimony, under their hands by which such particular disorderly
practices shalbee judged & condemned.[16]

1694. . . . And that all that walk disorderly, should
be tenderly dealt withal, in the same love wherewithal God hath loved
us; but, if they cannot be reclaimed, they ought to be denied, and
Truth cleared. . . . (Yearly Meeting).[17]

It is advised, that where any transgress the rules of our discipline,
they may, without partiality, be admonished and sought in the spirit
of love and divine charity, so that it may be seen by all, that the
restoring spirit of meekness and christian love abounds, before church
censure takes place, and that a gospel spirit is the spring and motive
to all our performances, as well in discipline as in worship.[18]

When a member's offense came to the attention of the
Monthly Meeting which was not supposed to happen before one or more
Friends had already admonished the offender without success[19] the meeting would appoint a
committee (usually of two solid Friends) to ascertain the facts about
the matter reported, and (if the member complained of was guilty) to
learn whether he or she was repentant. It the individual did not seem
contrite the visiting Friends would labor with him or her in meekness
and brotherly compassion, hoping to bring the offender to sincere
repentance. If this was successful the Friend would offer a written
apology (often called an acknowledgment ) expressing that what he or
she had done was contrary to the principles of Friends, that s/he was
sorry for it and intended with God's help to behave better in the
future. This was also referred to as condemning one's action.
The reason for its being in writing was so that Friends' disunity
with the action would be on record. How widely the repentant Friend
would be asked to circulate such a paper would depend on how far the
scandal had been known; the point being to make the position of
Friends clear to those who might otherwise through a member's
deviant action have been in doubt about it. To read an acknowledgment
in a public meeting might be a humiliating task for the contrite
Friend, but humiliation was not its purpose, and it was felt that if
the Friend was sincere he or she would be motivated to clear the
reputation of the Society. It sometimes happened that a Friend felt
so convicted about a misdeed as to make an acknowledgment even though
the transgression had not come to the meeting's attention.

Disowning was not done lightly. Overseers labored sometimes
for years with offenders. [20] A
reading of the Upperside Monthly Meeting minutes for 1669-1690 shows
that the meeting would postpone disownment as long as there seemed the
least tenderness in an offender, and sometimes when there didn't,
if a member felt concerned to make some further effort.

If, however, the erring Friend persistently refused to offer a
satisfactory acknowledgment,[21]
then the meeting would eventually write a paper indicating its
disunity with the action and its disownment of the offender. The
purpose of such a paper was the same as the purpose of the
acknowledgment would have been to keep the moral or doctrinal
standards of the Society of Friends a clear matter of record. The
extent of publicity would likewise be the same.[22]

When a minute of disownment had been written by the Monthly
Meeting, a copy of it was given to the person disowned, who was
informed that he had a right (within a limited time) to appeal to the
Quarterly Meeting, which could overturn the disownment.[23] If the Quarterly Meeting upheld
the disownment, an appeal could be made to the Yearly Meeting, whose
decision was final. A testimony against an individual would not be
published until the case was settled.

Purposes and Nonpurposes of Disownment

We have discussed the primary function of disownment in
maintaining the public credibility of Friends' corporate
testimonies. Another, closely related, purpose was that of
maintaining the internal consistency of the Society in its
decision-making bodies. Attendance at Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly
meetings for business was select that is, limited to members in good
standing.[24] These members could be
assumed to have the same convictions and therefore to be approaching
the questions before the meeting with a common purpose. Throwing the
doors open to people who were at open variance with the Body, either
in principle or practice, would make it difficult or impossible to
find the unity that Friends sought in their deliberations. That true
unanimity is now regarded as an impossible ideal in most Quaker
meetings may be a direct result of the fact that disownment is no
longer practiced.

To sharpen up these concepts it may be helpful to list some things which were
not the purpose of disownment.

Disownment was not for the purpose of doing the offender good
(nor for doing him or her harm). The admonitory steps that preceded
disownment did aim at the spiritual welfare of the erring
Friend, but disownment occurred at the point where the community felt
it had done its duty to that end and must proceed with disownment for
the sake of Friends' testimony. Presumably in some cases
disownment might have produced a salutary shock that would awaken the
sinner and motivate reformation, while in other cases it might have
led to the person's hardening; but Friends did not try to predict
which of these outcomes was the more likely in a given case and did
not use this type of consideration to determine whether disownment was
in order.

Disownment was not done to get rid of the company of someone
whom other Friends disliked. Members were disowned only for specific
transgressions, and their company was removed only from business
meetings. In other spheres there might be as much social interaction
with an individual after disownment as there was before.

It was not the purpose of disownment to define the
individual's standing with God. Jack Marietta states, Friends
did not claim that admission to the Society indicated salvation or a
state of grace. They were singularly quiet about the inner state of
members. Quite consistently, then, they did not claim that disownment
signified a fall from grace or damnation. [25] This is true, though it should be
modified with the observation that Friends did believe that the Light
of Christ was available to all and would, if heeded carefully enough,
prevent Friends from committing those acts which put them out of
unity. Such expressions as J. T. . . . for want
of duly attending to the dictates of Truth within himself has so far
deviated from the wholesome Rules established amongst us as to
[violate them in such-and-such a way] [26] were not unusual in minutes of
disownment. But it was the outward misdeed, not the inferred inward
carelessness, that J. T. was disowned for. Friends did not
consider conversion to be instantaneous and hence did not make
assertions about who was or was not born again.

Consequences of Disownment

The chief consequence of disownment for the disowned person
was that he or she no longer had a right to attend business meetings;
for the Society it was that they no longer had an obligation to
oversee his behavior. This did not necessarily mean that pastoral
concern for him ceased; numerous accounts exist in the journals of
Friends' ministers of visits to disowned persons and counsel
offered them. But such efforts were undertaken at the ministers'
own initiative in obedience to the leadings they felt; the meeting as
such would not usually feel any need to delegate someone to visit a
disowned person.

There was no shunning involved in disownment; familial and
secular relationships continued as before. This can be seen not only
by the absence, from books of Discipline, of any injunction to shun
former Friends, but by the lack of any disciplinary concern, in the
minute books of meetings, about familiarity with disowned persons.[27] Had such relationships been
frowned upon we would know it: it would have been a major
agenda item, for most disowned Friends were close relatives of Friends
in good standing. In this respect there is a notable contrast with
the discipline of some Anabaptist groups, in which the community has
to struggle with the question of how much familiarity between a member
and an ex-member is permitted and even at times to excommunicate
members for being too friendly with the excommunicated. Friends felt
they should be friendly toward the disowned, without
compromising their testimony:

The right exercise of the discipline in relation to offenders was
feelingly adverted to, with desires that friends may particularly
regard the obligations of the gospel spirit, which, whilst it
inculcates the painful necessity of placing judgment upon the obdurate
and unrepenting, regards with affectionate sympathy every appearance
of returning rectitude, and also calls upon us to act with such
propriety and circumspection relative to those who have been disunited
from the society as that it may be obvious to them that even though
the causes of the separation continue to exist, yet we nevertheless
retain towards them that good will which remains to be one of the
essential and distinguishing characteristics of the truly Christian
mind.[28]

Disowned Persons in Meetings for Worship

Friends were as zealous for the public character of their
meetings for worship as they were for the select character of their
meetings for business. As Richard Vann states, Quaker meetings for
worship were in every sense public meetings, open to all who cared or
dared to come. [29] Dared was very
much to the point in that Friends would put up with a great deal of
abuse rather than limit access to these meetings; though they might be
attended by informers who would supply persecutors with lists of
Quakers; or by violent persons with or without judicial authority, who
entered them to assault Quakers and drag them away. There was always
the hope that the power of God in the meeting would reach the heart of
the hostile attender.[30]

During the Wilkinson-Story controversy one of the complaints
against the separatists was that they would hold their meetings in
secluded places to avoid persecution.[31]

In fact the public character of Friends' worship was part
of the reason why disownment had to be instituted not to keep
disorderly persons away from meetings but to signify to the world that
these people's attendance at Quaker meetings did not imply
Friends' approval of their life styles. Thus a 1677 minute of
Upperside Monthly Meeting, testifying against a couple living in
adultery, states:

We therefore ye People of God called Quakers (who live in ye parts
adjacent) being met together in ye name & fear of ye Lord
Jesus . . . do solemnly declare, yt although ye said J
C & E W have at sometimes come to our Meetings (whose Meetings are
wel known to be publick & open to al) yet were they never received
or owned by us . . . .[32]

Bristol Friends stated, we dare Not for Conscience Sake, keep any out
of our Metinge how profane soever. [33]

In most cases, and especially in later years when
Friends' principles were more generally known and persecution was
not an issue, disowned persons were positively encouraged to attend
Quaker worship. One example of such outreach toward former members is
a small book entitled A Compassionate Call and Hand Reached forth
in Tender Gospel Love, to all such Persons, as having once made
Profession of the blessed TRUTH, yet by some Misconduct or other, have
unhappily forfeited their Unity with the Society of Friends; in what
Capacity, Post or Station soever in the CHURCH they may have been; or
in what Circumstance of Life soever they now stand, in their present
disunited Situation. The author writes:

that sometimes Persons that have given real Occasion for the Line of
Judgment to be stretched over them, have taken such a disgust at the
just Censure, when past upon them, that they have forsaken religious
Assemblies; who by so doing do evidently demonstrate great Weakness,
and that they give way to the Spirit of the Enemy, who is always
seeking Advantage against us frail Mortals, in order to draw us
farther and farther from the Truth, . . . Wherefore, I
again most earnestly intreat you, in much Love and Good-will, that ye
who have taken Offence of this kind, would forthwith endeavour to lay
aside all Resentment, and Dislike, that you may have unwarily let in,
and wait to feel the peaceable Spirit of meek Jesus, our blessed
Redeemer and therein attend religious
Meetings; . . . .[34]

Marietta lists ``How well had he attended meetings for worship?'' as
one of the criteria that would be considered if an offender petitioned
for readmission.[35]

The vocal contributions of disowned persons were not always as welcome as
their presence. An 1809 Discipline advises

friends every where to avoid public opposition to a minister, not disowned
by the monthly or quarterly-meeting to which he or she shall belong, by
keeping on their hats in time of prayer, or any other token of disunion.[36]

Joseph Hoag relates the following incident:

We then proceeded to Sugar Creek, arriving there on sixth day.
Seventh day, we had a meeting with the few Friends of that place, who
were much tired with a person, who had been disowned and had
frequently come into their meetings, and took up much time in
preaching, to the burdening of Friends; and what made it more
grievous, he preached what were not Friends' principles, and when
spoken with, he justified himself, saying, that if he could not preach
among them agreeable to his own conscience, he would not meet with
them. After weighing the subject, I believed it right to tell
Friends, that I thought it would be best for them to let him know they
could not receive his testimony, and why; for if you suffer him to
continue on, and he preaches as you have stated, it will do more hurt
in this new country, by your giving him countenance where Friends and
their principles are but little known than all he can do, should he
make a noise abroad; for you can then inform the people why you
rejected him.[37]

After the highly controversial disownment of Isaac Hopper in 1842 (he was
connected with a political Abolitionist magazine that had attacked another
Friends' minister as soft on slavery) Hopper

attended meeting constantly, as he had ever done, and took his seat on the
bench under the preachers' gallery, facing the audience, where he had
always been accustomed to sit, when he was an honored member of the Society.
Charles Marriott [disowned for the same cause], who was by temperament a much
meeker man, said to him one day, The overseers have called upon me, to
represent the propriety of my taking another seat, under existing
circumstances. I expect they will call upon thee, to give the same advice.

I expect they won't, was Isaac's laconic reply; and they
never did.[38]

Reinstatement

The route to reinstatement to Quaker membership was the same
as that for avoiding disownment in the first place: the writing (and
if need be publishing) of a statement acknowledging one's fault
and expressing repentance. Though some Friends' writings give
the impression that this was the only thing sought by Friends for
restoring unity, there arose in practice occasions for questioning
whether a particular acknowledgment was adequate. One individual who
wrote to Upperside Monthly Meeting acknowledging his weakness and
imprudence in a certain action was told by the meeting that he had
been deceitful as well as weak and imprudent and his acknowledgment
was not accepted.[39] A 1708 epistle
of London Yearly Meeting states:

And forasmuch as some persons (who, by their ill conduct, have justly deserved,
and come under, the censure of the meetings to which they belong) have thought
to get from under the weight of this judgment, by signing a paper of
Condemnation, and thereby suppose themselves discharged; it is therefore
recommended to Friends' consideration, that they be careful not to admit
such persons too early into fellowship (or to give them cause to think they are
accepted,) before the meeting or meetings are satisfied in their repentance and
amendment, notwithstanding such paper be given.[40]

Marietta mentions, as conditions of assessing the sincerity of
a penitent, Did the gestures of the delinquent demonstrate humility?
Was his confession declamatory or evasive? A period of time long
enough to permit him to understand his guilt and show genuine
contrition was also expected.

The normal period of disunion for those who were reinstated was a year
or longer; some returned fifteen to twenty years after disownment.
Nevertheless, within any category of offense, one finds disowned
Friends who were later readmitted. Disownment was never final; there
was no kind of behavior or belief which Friends in Pennsylvania never
forgave.[41]
Once a sin had been forgiven it was supposed to be forgotten:

And it is also our advice, in the love of God, that after any friend's
repentance and restoration, he abiding faithful in the truth that condemns the
evil, none among you so remember his transgression, as to cast it at him, or
upbraid him with it; for that is not according to the mercies of God. 1675[42]

Concluding Remarks

Is it really a bad thing for our Religious Society to have
principles, and to cease to acknowledge as members persons who insist
on rejecting those principles? We have seen that disownment among
Friends was not intended to hurt the persons to whom it was applied or
to deny them love; that offenders were patiently and tenderly labored
with before there was a decision to disown; that even after disownment
they might be the recipients of Quaker ministry; that they were not
socially ostracized nor denied the opportunity to worship with
Friends; and that the possibility of reinstatement was always open.
How did disownment get such a bad name?

We do not attempt here to answer that question as regards what
historical events led to the forsaking of a tradition that Friends had
maintained for two and a half centuries. Ronald Selleck, in his
paper, Why Should the Doors Be Thrown Open? [43] presents an interesting historical
discussion of the decline of Friends' discipline between 1887 and
1907, especially in the Gurneyite wing. He seems unaware that there
has also been such a decline among Conservative Friends, though it
took place a little later.

Phebe Hall wrote, Some say we must not disown, because the
individuals may become hardened and never return, . . .
I have read of many who did return after they were disowned and of
some who became Gospel ministers. I do not believe it is the fault of
the meeting if any fail to return, unless there has been a lack of
exercising divine love towards them. [44]

Human beings, including Quakers, being what they are, there
probably was an insufficiency of divine love in some disownment
proceedings, but if so this shows only that Friends failed to live up
to their principles. It does not prove that those principles were
wrong.

APPENDIX

A. What Offenses did Friends Disown For?

Any behavior thought inappropriate for a Quaker could become a
matter of discipline; whether the process led to disownment depended
less on the seriousness of the offense than on whether the offender
made an adequate acknowledgment. (With serious offenses or public
scandal, however, there is some indication that meetings were stricter
about what sort of acknowledgment would satisfy them.) Marrying out
was the commonest cause for disownment not because Friends thought it
the worst deviation, but because it was the most frequent.

We offer the statistics below and on the following page for
historical interest; it is not our aim in this paper to take up the
question of what actions should be matter for discipline today.

nonattendance of meetings and departing from plainness of dress and address

6

military service

2

unjust dealing

1

adultery

1

offense regarding liquor

1

going to law

1

loose conduct

1

dancing

1

gambling

1

fighting

1

attending a place of music and dancing

1

denying the divinity of Christ

1

request

1

telling untruths

B. Some Sample Minutes of Disownment

1681 These are to certify to all People where this Writing may come,
that whereas A.B. hath for divers years gone under the denomination of a
Quaker, and yet in several things hath walked disorderly, and more especially
hath been subject to the vile and notorious Sin of Drunkenness; and tho'
he hath from time to time, for the space of ten years and upwards, been very
tenderly admonished, both privately and publickly, yet still he persists and is
subject to be overcome by that notorious Sin, to the great Dishonour of God,
his Truth and People, and to the saddening of the Hearts of the
Upright, . . . we can do no less than declare against him and
his evil course of Life; and hereby signify unto all the World, that we do
disown him and all such unsavoury Members and actions as he is found in. And
the Lord our God, in whose Presence we are knows that this is not done in any
Rashness or Prejudice towards him as a man, but in very much Tenderness and
Humility. And if it shall please God so to work upon his Heart and Spirit that
he be made sensible of his Sin and Transgression, and come, thro'
Judgment, unto true and unfeigned Repentance and Amendment of Life, and, in
true Penitency and Brokenness of Spirit, seek Reconciliation again with the
Lord and his People, we shall in the same tenderness and unfeigned Love be glad
and willing to receive him, as the Father did his prodigal Son, into Favour and
Fellowship again, until which time we do Deny and Disown him and his Actions,
and cannot account or esteem him to be one of us. (Castledermot)[46]

1720 Whereas E.F. hath made Profession of Truth several years, but by
giving too much opportunity of Familiarity and Conversation on account of
Marriage with A.B. who for committing Uncleanness with a young Woman, and
afterwards refusing to marry her according to Justice, was testified against
and disowned to be of us the People called Quakers, hath suffered herself, in a
disorderly manner, to be joyned unto the said A.B. as his Wife, to the
defrauding of the said young Woman of her Right, being yet Unmarried; we do
hereby declare, that the said E.F. by her so going hath gone out of Fellowship
with us the said People, and we cannot own her to be of our Society, until, by
unfeigned Repentance, she obtain Mercy of the Lord, which that she may is our
sincere Desire. (Dublin)[47]

1741 J.Y. disowned because he hath given way to a libertine spirit as
to strip off his shirt in order to fight with another person with blows at a
public house they being playing a game called hustle cap. John informed he
must make a public acknowledgment, refused, saying he was assured to be at his
liberty. And was disowned. (Goshen)[48]

1765 Whereas, W.M. hath had his education among us, and been deemed a
member of our Society, but for want of enough regarding the dictates of Truth
in his heart, which would have preserved him from evil, and enabled him to live
a life of integrity and self-denial, he hath given way to his libertine
inclinations, so far as to neglect his lawful business, and too much practice
jockeying or dealing in horses, and several other things tending to a vain and
idle life; whereby he involved himself in debt, and became unable to satisfy
his creditors, by paying their just demands; and hath also, for a considerable
time, almost wholly absented himself from our religious meetings, and doth not
keep to the plain language, nor appear convinced of the necessity thereof; all
which being reproachful, we disown him, . . . . (New
Garden Monthly Meeting)[49]

1776 W.R. who by birth had a right of membership in our Religious
Society but through levity and a disregard to that principle which would
preserve if adhered to, he hath been seduced and drawn away with the Spirit of
the Times so far as to inlist and join in the active part of war, leaving his
place of abode to that end, and having given us no opportunity to treat with
him on this sorrowful occasion, we, agreeable to our antient practice, think it
requisite to deny him the right of membership among us, which is hereby
confirmed by our monthly meeting and he so to stand until by due contrition he
condemns his conduct which we can but desire on his behalf. (Fairfax Monthly
Meeting)[50]

1779 G.N. having had his Birth and education amongst us the People
called Quakers but for want of taking heed to the dictates of Truth in his own
breast he has so far deviated as to be guilty of fornication; for which
reproachful Conduct we deny him the right of membership amongst us until he is
enabled to make suitable satisfaction for the same, which is desired on his
behalf. (Fairfax Monthly Meeting)[51]

1795 Whereas M.H. hath been guilty of appointing meetings and preaching
to the people contrary to the good order used among friends, for which conduct
of his we disown him from being a member of our society untill he comes to a
sense of his error so as to make suitable satisfaction for the same, which that
he may is desired for him. (Hopewell Monthly Meeting)[52]

1829 W.M. Jr. has been guilty of dancing, attending a places of
diversion and deviating from the truth and after having been treated with
without the desired effect, we disown him from being a member of our religious
society. (Somerset Monthly Meeting)[53]

1839 S.W. has neglected the attendance of our religious meetings and
attended those of the Hicksites; and having been treated with therefor,
manifested no desire to retain her right of membership with friends. We
therefore disown her from being a member of our religious society. (Somerset
Monthly Meeting)[54]

1882 R.M. formerly P. has accomplished her marriage contrary to our
discipline and having been treated with there for did not manifest a suitable
disposition to condemn her deviation. We therefore disown her from being a
member of our religious society. (Somerset Monthly Meeting)[55]

1887 R.G. having neglected the attendance of our Religious meetings and
joined the Methodist Society and being treated with therefor did not manifest a
disposition to condemn her deviation, we therefore disown her as a member of
our Religious Society. (Somerset Monthly Meeting)[56]

1963 Since K.J. violated our Christian testimony against military
service by serving in the air force, and since he manifests no disposition to
condemn his deviation, he is now disowned by this meeting. (Somerset Monthly
Meeting)[57]

C. Some Sample Acknowledgments

1687 Whereas I G.B. of Chesham, having for divers years made
Profession of the holy Truth and way of God wch ye People called
Quakers walk in, have of late, through my unfaithfullness to ye
Principle I professed, joyned myself in Marriage (with) one who is not
in the same Profession of Religion, & have gone to the Priest for
the accomplishing therof, agt. the perswasion & conviction of my
own Conscience; wherby I have greatly offended God, caused the way of
Truth to be evil spoken off, grieved his People among whom I walked,
broken my own peace, & drawn the displeasure of the Lord upon
myself, to my great trouble & sorrow: In the sense wherof, I do
freely acknowledge ye Evill I have done & do sincerely declare yt
I am heartily sorry for it. Nevertheless, I do hereby declare, yt I
hold myself firmly bound, before God and men, to keep ye promise I
made unto my husband in Marriage, & with full purpose of heart do
intend to be unto him a loving and faithfull wife, according to the
Covenant made between us. (Upperside Monthly Meeting)[58]

1716 To the Monthly Meeting, &c. Inasmuch as it hath been
requested of me why I was not married according to the order used
among us, my reasons are great. I would I had them not to excuse
myself in this behalf, they are so plain and so manifest, having been
unlawfully concerned with her that is now my wife before marriage.
For the which deed I am right sorry as God knows. This I give forth
for the clearing of Friends and the Truth. As witness my hand, T.S.
(Kennett Monthly Meeting)[59]

1738 J.T. offered an acknowledgment for his "going to a man
[soothsayer] to be informed concerning my horse. I can only say I had
no desire he should make use of any bad art in that affair; and if he
could not tell me anything by his learning in an honest way to go no
further. Likewise I was ignorant of Friends rules in that affair: But
being better informed, hope for the future not to fall into the like
again." (Concord)[60]

1751 Friends, Whereas I contended with my neighbor, W.S., for
what I apprehended to be my right, by endeavoring to turn a certain
stream of water into its natural course, till it arose to a personal
difference; in which dispute I gave way to warmth of temper so far as
to put my friend W. into the pond; for which action of mine, being
contrary to the good order of Friends, I am sorry, and desire, through
Divine assistance, to live in unity with him for the future. From
your friend, J.W. (Wilmington)[61]

1776 Whereas I the subscriber have several times stood Centry
in a military manner and having considered the same, I see it to be
wrong, for which misconduct I am sorry, and hope to be more careful
for the future, desiring that Friends would accept this my
acknowledgment and continue me under their care as my future conduct
shall render me worthy. J.L. (Fairfax Monthly Meeting)[62]

1778 Dear Friends, Whereas I have paid a fine imposed on me for
not appearing in a militant order with Andrew Tranburg and company,
for which act of so doing I have received considerable condemnation,
and am sensible that it is not consistent with a Christian life to do
so; therefore, for the clearing of Truth and my own conscience, I thus
give my testimony against that misstep, and hope for the future to
keep nearer the spirit of Truth, that leads and not astray. I am your
Friend, I.H. (Wilmington Monthly Meeting)[63]

1778 (an unsolicited acknowledgment): S.D., under a sense of her own
transgression, attended this meeting and offered a paper in order to
acknowledge and condemn the same.

Whereas I, the subscriber, for want of giving heed to
the dictates of Truth in my own heart, which would have preserved me
from evil, have, in a most sorrowful manner, deviated therefrom, and
given way to a libertine disposition in keeping company with a man in
no way suitable for me; and was led away in such a manner as to be
guilty of fornication. It is with shame and sorrow of heart that I
expose myself; but it has often come before the view of my mind that
the taking of the accursed thing formerly, although hid, even under
ground, yet it was a hindrance to the battle of the Lord going
forward. So I have been ready to conclude, that my endeavoring to
keep this a secret might, in a spiritual sense, be a hindrance to the
battle in this our day. And it is the sincere desire of my mind, that
Infinite Goodness, which has been graciously pleased to visit me and
set my sins in order before me, may not leave me nor forsake me; and
that everything in me that is sinful or displeasing in his sight may
be stoned, and the stump and root thereof be burned with fire, and
that I may witness my sins to be washed away. Then I shall have more
comfort that I sometime ago had, when I thought the time had come
wherein I must appear before Him who knows the secrets of all hearts,
and is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity with approbation. Oh,
that I may often think of the distress that I was then in, for it
passed through my mind, with many other things, that there was a woe
pronounced against those that made the outside of the cup and platter
clean, while the inside was full of hypocrisy; and it seemed to me
that they were those who had the favor of man, but not of God. Now,
as I felt myself, through my misconduct (though in a secret manner),
disowned from the true unity of Friends, yet I think I can say that I
am heartily sorry for all such misconduct as I have been guilty of,
and do wish that Friends may find freedom so far to pass by my offence
as to continue me under their care, hoping my future conduct may
better desire it. S.D.' (Wilmington Monthly Meeting)[64]

1779 Whereas I the subscriber some years past was so off my
watch as to accompany my sister in her outgoing in marriage, contrary
to the good order used amongst friends, on which account friends
laboured with me, but thro' obstinacy I rejected their advice and
suffered myself to be disowned, but being since favoured with a sight
of the inconsistency of such a conduct do hereby condemn the same as
disorderly and request that Friends may receive me into membership
again, hoping to conduct better in future. (Fairfax Monthly
Meeting)[65]

1784 Whereas I have been guilty of strikeing and riding over a
man, for which conduct I am sorry, desiring that friends may pass it
by, and continue me under their care as my future conduct may render
me worthy. Given from under my hand this 1st day of the 11th month,
1784. R.F. (Hopewell Monthly Meeting)[66]

1786 Whereas I have made profession of the Truth, but not being
strickly on my guarde, gave way to passion, so as to throw a stool at
a man, for which misconduct I am sorry, desiring Friends to pass it
by, and I hope to be more careful. 1/2/1786, W.S. (Hopewell Monthly
Meeting)[67]

1787 I have for some time past been desirous to be joined in
membership with my Friends, and from the feelings of my mind, have
requested the same, and do acknowledge the Meeting was just in
disowning me from being a member of their religious society for
accomplishing my marriage by the assistance of an hireling teacher,
for which conduct I am sorry, and desire Friends may pass it by, and
receive me into membership again, as my future conduct may recommend
me. This from your friend, P.Y. (Hopewell Monthly Meeting)[68]

The use of written acknowledgments continued into the twentieth century. Ruth
Pitman, in her paper herein cited, reports having seen one presented in Ohio
Yearly Meeting (Conservative) in the 1950s.